What part don’t you understand?

Playing with the interpretation of words is far too common a mode of attack against scientific conclusions. Frequently, the word “theory” is preyed upon for the difference in usage employed between scientists and the general understanding of its meaning. It is quite frustrating to hear things such as evolution and climate change being discarded because they are just “theories” of the scientific community, not conclusions. I was far too excited to read Helen Quinn’s excellent summary of this phenomenon: Belief and knowledge — a plea about language. Helen has very thoroughly examined the language divide which is causing confusion in the interpretation of science. It is an interesting observation that the ability to draw conclusions from inference tends to rely upon one’s ability to accept a natural chain of logic, whether it be correct or not. The example she uses is discovery of a planet, which is not necessarily an optical observation, but tends to be interpreted as such by the general public. Her argument is that this modified chain of logic increases acceptance, regardless of whether it actually represents reality.

1 Comment

xyzon September 24th, 2007

It’s amazing the power that this language can have. Whether or not scientists care to acknowledge it, there are segments of society that are actively battling science. By grabbing on words and deliberately misplaying them to a faithful audience, those disingenuous few can distort scientific findings to the point of absurdity. That is, of course, the point. I like Helen’s statement that words such as belief and theory are filled with danger and should be avoided…